names, part III

I had the hope, that I wouldn’t need a Z-part. So it would only be Anna Dorothea.
Since last weekend I’m very into Anna Tannekyn.
Tannekyn can be documented for 1571 (see: http://www.ellipsis.cx/~liana/names/drafts/strangers) as a female name and would be the smaller form of “Ann/Anne/Anna/Johanna”.
The SCA says:
“A personal name must contain a given name and at least one byname. A byname is any name added to the given name to identify its bearer more precisely.” and
“A byname may be one of relationship, a second given name, locative , describe occupation, status, or office, a descriptive nickname, a sentence, oath, or phrase name”
(see: http://www.sca.org/heraldry/laurel/rfs.html#1)
I think, Tannekyn (flemish “het Anneken” = “the small/little Anna”) could be the descirptive nickname to Anna. Then these two names would be all I would try to register.
Do you think, this is possible?

One thought on “names, part III

  1. Anna, this would be a time when the rules must be looked at through the greater understanding of the Laurel Precedents and other knowledge of the College.
    Keep in mind that the rules and all are generally in place to make for better, more accurate names ~based on what the College knows~ which is the problem you ran in to with Sivenhain.
    I think Anne Tannekyn may well be registerable if we can show that it is a reasonable construction for late period Low Country names.
    In this case, we need to show that this name construction (given name + descriptive by-name or given name + matronymic) were used in the time and place the names come from. In this case we’re talking about Flaunders or the Low Countries in the 1500s.
    You’ll note that I gave two variables of construction. descriptive by-names were pretty much done by the end of our period and they tended to be things that modified the given name (Little John, Blaca Peter) or described some physcial or personal feature or characteristic (die bastaert=the bastard, die Hase=the hare probably a fast runner or maybe a man with many children or die Ruwe=the rough or crude).
    A patronymic is a by-name that uses your father’s name . . . Peterson, Petersen, Peters or just Peter. That last is called an unmarked patronymic as it doesn’t use any of the markers -son or possessive -s.
    There are rare instances of matronymics known. In the article on Dutch Surnames at http://www.ellipsis.cx/~liana/names/dutch/dutch15surnames.html there is one entry:
    Geertruyt
    Truyde 1422 This appears to be a rare example of a matronym
    This would be an unmarked matronymic since it isn’t Truydessen or somesuch. What we need to do, ideally, is to find other examples of Flemmish or Low Country by-names that use matronyms. In this case, it’s using a petform of Gertrude, which is even better because you’re looking to use a pet form of Anna.
    Does this make sense, Anna? I know the rules of the heralds can seem convoluted and exasperating but there really is a great deal of thought that goes into them and there are reasons. And most importantly, with the ~right documentation~, the College can be shown to be wrong and they will conform to that new knowledge.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.